4 ms·

This isn't a sports match. What's wrong with what I said?

by smhost 10y ago

tunesmith 10y ago
Because she shouldn't have to get the fuck out. I don't understand why that is hard to understand.
- username223 10y ago
  > Because she shouldn't have to get the fuck out. There's not a whole lot of "have to" going on here. I'm just some boring straight "cuck," and if one of my female superiors propositioned me, and was protected by management, I'd immediately start looking for ways to GTFO. There are plenty of less-fucked places to have a career.
- smhost 10y ago
  Of course she shouldn't have to get the fuck out. Of course Uber shouldn't have such shitty policies. You're reading things that aren't there.
mLuby 10y ago
Her actions are rational; she followed the relevant protocols, policies and laws, just as a machine would. Ask some women about this post, and listen to what they tell you. Don't argue, just absorb.
- smhost 10y ago
  Yes, of course her actions were rational as she followed protocol. But then they became irrational when she decided to stay, even after she found out that nothing would be done about the harassment, after she found out how backwards and stupid the Uber's policies are.
  - monodeldiablo 10y ago
    If it helps, try pretending that she was treated this way because she was black. Would she still be "irrational" to want to stay in a job and earn a good wage without harassment and degradation? Would I have quit? You bet. But you have to understand that my freedom to do so is conditioned by a few assumptions: 1) I have the financial freedom to quit. 2) Working conditions are appreciably better at competing companies. 3) I'm able to land another job with comparable pay. 4) Quitting won't have negative repercussions on my future career. Can you say, unequivocally, that all these conditions (and more) are met for her? I can't. Nobody knows that but Susan. I understand you don't mean to, but you're coming awfully close to blaming the victim. Her quitting would have done nothing to change the environment except to reinforce the culture further, and we have no window into her personal reasons for staying. The point that everyone in this subthread keeps harping on is that they are not at all relevant. Period. That she stayed is completely immaterial. That's -- legally -- her choice. The fact that, by choosing to stay employed, she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment and misogyny is as deplorable as it is illegal.
    - debatem1 10y ago
      It seems you're speaking to whether her staying has potentially positive outcomes for others. My read of the comments upthread is that they're viewing the events through the lense of what's good for her personally and immediately. Which, as an aside, I suspect is how most Americans view conflicts with management of any stripe. My read of this is that most on this thread would say that it would be commendatory for her to stay and fight for change, but 100% ethical for her either to stay in her situation hoping for improvement or leave for a better place to be, and that in her shoes they would opt for the latter. To me this would not meet the plain language meaning of 'blaming the victim', but I recognize that plain language is not always so plain. I would like to better understand if it is victim blaming and, if not, if there are ways you know of to communicate the distinction being drawn above well. If it is, could you highlight what makes it so? Obviously it is not your responsibility to help me learn to communicate, but I would appreciate it if you did. And just to make sure it's clear: the behavior of the other employees mentioned is illegal and unbelievably unethical, and I am not in any way condoning or making excuses for it.

This isn't a sports match. What's wrong with what I said?

by smhost 10y ago

This isn't a sports match. What's wrong with what I said?

tunesmith 10y ago

Because she shouldn't have to get the fuck out. I don't understand why that is hard to understand.

username223 10y ago
> Because she shouldn't have to get the fuck out. There's not a whole lot of "have to" going on here. I'm just some boring straight "cuck," and if one of my female superiors propositioned me, and was protected by management, I'd immediately start looking for ways to GTFO. There are plenty of less-fucked places to have a career.
smhost 10y ago
Of course she shouldn't have to get the fuck out. Of course Uber shouldn't have such shitty policies. You're reading things that aren't there.

mLuby 10y ago

Her actions are rational; she followed the relevant protocols, policies and laws, just as a machine would. Ask some women about this post, and listen to what they tell you. Don't argue, just absorb.

smhost 10y ago
Yes, of course her actions were rational as she followed protocol. But then they became irrational when she decided to stay, even after she found out that nothing would be done about the harassment, after she found out how backwards and stupid the Uber's policies are.
- monodeldiablo 10y ago
  If it helps, try pretending that she was treated this way because she was black. Would she still be "irrational" to want to stay in a job and earn a good wage without harassment and degradation? Would I have quit? You bet. But you have to understand that my freedom to do so is conditioned by a few assumptions: 1) I have the financial freedom to quit. 2) Working conditions are appreciably better at competing companies. 3) I'm able to land another job with comparable pay. 4) Quitting won't have negative repercussions on my future career. Can you say, unequivocally, that all these conditions (and more) are met for her? I can't. Nobody knows that but Susan. I understand you don't mean to, but you're coming awfully close to blaming the victim. Her quitting would have done nothing to change the environment except to reinforce the culture further, and we have no window into her personal reasons for staying. The point that everyone in this subthread keeps harping on is that they are not at all relevant. Period. That she stayed is completely immaterial. That's -- legally -- her choice. The fact that, by choosing to stay employed, she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment and misogyny is as deplorable as it is illegal.
  - debatem1 10y ago
    It seems you're speaking to whether her staying has potentially positive outcomes for others. My read of the comments upthread is that they're viewing the events through the lense of what's good for her personally and immediately. Which, as an aside, I suspect is how most Americans view conflicts with management of any stripe. My read of this is that most on this thread would say that it would be commendatory for her to stay and fight for change, but 100% ethical for her either to stay in her situation hoping for improvement or leave for a better place to be, and that in her shoes they would opt for the latter. To me this would not meet the plain language meaning of 'blaming the victim', but I recognize that plain language is not always so plain. I would like to better understand if it is victim blaming and, if not, if there are ways you know of to communicate the distinction being drawn above well. If it is, could you highlight what makes it so? Obviously it is not your responsibility to help me learn to communicate, but I would appreciate it if you did. And just to make sure it's clear: the behavior of the other employees mentioned is illegal and unbelievably unethical, and I am not in any way condoning or making excuses for it.